11

Chapter 1

Introduction

The ‘licence to operate’ of Dutch agriculture is being challenged due to persistent

environmental, public health, animal welfare, and spatial pressure problems

(Beekman, 2008; Driessen, 2010). Increasing use of agro-chemicals, pesticides, and

antibiotics, and the outbreaks of veterinary diseases, scaling up of land use and

increasing ethical concerns about animal welfare urge the need for a more

sustainable agricultural sector in The Netherlands. To change the sector into one

that combines animal & human well-being and a sustainable rural environment

with economic viability is the challenge for the next decade(s).

Despite numerous promising efforts (e.g. regulations, R&D programmes, subsidies,

and local initiatives), the development of more sustainable practices and business

models in the agricultural sector is proceeding slowly. It is argued that several

factors underlie this slow transition (Geels, 2005; Grin, Rotmans and Schot). First,

experience shows that the needed change does not come about through single

track interventions initiated either from policy, research or the business

community. Second, and in addition, most of the current efforts show a

disconnection between policy, research and local businesses. Third, the current

efforts often focus too much on single, well-defined topics (e.g. either on

improving pig welfare or on decreasing phosphate and nitrate emissions). To

realise desired changes in the agricultural sector an integral, collaborative and

multi-level approach involving farmers, policy-makers, researchers, community

members and opinion leaders is needed. Such an approach aims for a cascade of

technical, practical and cultural changes within the sector, which is referred to as

system innovation.

This thesis explores initiatives that aim to contribute to agricultural system

innovation in order to realise a more sustainable sector. Specifically, it aims to

contribute to:

I. The theoretical understanding of agricultural system innovations.

II. The understanding of the guidance of agricultural innovation projects.

This chapter starts with a description of the development of Dutch agriculture and

elaborates on the sector and its current limits (section 1.1). Next, relevant

Chapter 1

12

concepts in the field of system innovation and science and technology studies are

explored (section 1.2). In section 1.3 understudied issues and related research

questions are identified. The research on which this thesis is based is conducted

using a case study approach. An introduction of the five studied cases, a

clarification of the research methodology and an overview of the data collection is

provided in section 1.4. Last, a reading guide is included in section 1.5.

1.1 Background: the Dutch Agricultural Sector

From the 19th until the end of the 20th century, Dutch agricultural policy was

aimed at intensifying food production. After the famine that prevailed during

World War II, the government invested heavily in agricultural knowledge

infrastructure with the aim of modernising the agricultural sector. The

infrastructure of Dutch agricultural knowledge is referred to as the ‘Education,

Extension and Research (EER) triptych’ (OVO drieluik). It incorporates research and

development (R&D) organisations, such as an agricultural university, applied and

strategic research institutes, experimental stations and demonstration farms.

Researchers of these institutions monitored the agricultural sector and developed

and tested new technologies, processes and products. The extension programmes

included specialists and regional fieldworkers, who were responsible for the rapid

diffusion and implementation of new knowledge, information, technologies,

processes and products within the agricultural sector. In addition, there were

several agricultural schools to educate the future generations of farmers (Grin,

2010; Leeuwis, et al., 2006). The EER triptych contributed to “the Netherlands

becoming the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world around

1980” (Leeuwis, et al., 2006, p. 7).

Today, the Dutch agricultural sector is, when compared to other countries, highly

productive and efficient. More than two thirds of Dutch vegetables, fruits, flowers,

pig meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products are exported around the world.

Although modernisation of agriculture resulted in high availability of food in the

Netherlands, it also gradually led to numerous unforeseen negative side effects,

including environmental, public health, animal welfare and spatial pressure

problems.

Environmental problems arise from farmers applying chemicals, such as pesticides,

and from animals emitting nutrients such as CO2 and NO3, which pollute soil, water

and air. Rachel Carson’s landmark book ‘Silent Spring’ (1962), about the disastrous

Introduction

13

effects of agricultural pesticides on birdlife, opened the eyes of many and since the

1970s public awareness of the negative environmental side-effects of agriculture

has steadily increased. In the 1980s the polluting effects of manure became visible

to the public as trees were losing their leaves and needles due to acid rain (Grin,

2010). The contribution of agriculture to Global Warming (18 % of the greenhouse

gases emitted due to human activity according to Steinfield et al., 2006) is less

visible but often cited in public media. In addition, the risk of transmission of

infectious diseases from animals to humans gains public attention. Over the last

fourteen years hundreds of people died due to outbreaks of BSE (mad cow

disease), avian influenza (bird flu) and EHEC infections. Furthermore, intensive

animal husbandry sparks fierce public debate about animal welfare (Eijsackers and

Scholten, 2010). Representatives of the Dutch Party for the Animals (in Dutch:

‘Partij voor de Dieren’) placed ethical concerns about animal treatment within

intensive agriculture, which they consistently refer to as ‘factory farming’ (in

Dutch: ‘bio-industrie’), high on the political agenda.

In addition, the Dutch agricultural sector is confronted with increasing

international competition. The resulting pressure on profit margins leads to an

increase in scale of the farms (Bruchem et al., 2008; LEI and CBS, 2011). A press

release of the Statistics Netherlands (in Dutch: ‘Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek’)

(van der Wal and de Rooij, 2010) on the basis of the Dutch agricultural data (LEI

and CBS, 2011) states that from 1995 to 2009 the total number of Dutch farms

dropped with 36 percent to approximately 73,000 farms, while at the same time

production rose by 15 percent. In 2009, the average farm comprised 50 percent

more land than in 1995 (van der Wal and de Rooij, 2010). Several NGOs and public

actors criticise the trend of scaling-up farms as they see it as an extension of the

kind of modernisation and industrialisation which caused the unforeseen

environmental issues in the first place. An example of this view is the video clip

‘the Meatrix’ (TheOfficialMeatrix, 2006, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

qSqAMt_C7kw. Accessed at 5 June 2011).

The issues mentioned above contributed to the public appeal of the sustainable

development of the agricultural sector. In response, agricultural policy nowadays

aims at achieving an agricultural production sector that is not only economically

robust, but also environmentally and animal- and socially friendly (Bos, 2008).

Since the 1980s, the Dutch government has endeavoured to motivate the

agricultural sector not only to focus on increasing the scale of production but also

to pursue alternative directions such as precision agriculture, agriculture that is

Chapter 1

14

energy and waste efficient, multifunctional land-use, and biological agriculture.

Despite numerous government policies, agricultural change proceeded slowly.

Leeuwis et al. (2006) argue that the Dutch government started to regard

agricultural knowledge infrastructure (including the EER triangle) as an obstacle

rather than a stimulant to transform agriculture into a more sustainable sector.

The government argued that new market-oriented research, development and

innovation programmes were needed to contribute to the sustainable

development of agriculture.

A selection of innovation programmes that were recently (within 21st

century)

funded include: Innovation Network (in Dutch: ‘InnovatieNetwerk’) (Grin and van

Staveren, 2007), TransForum (van Latesteijn and Andeweg, 2010) and Cluster

Sustainable Production and Transition (in Dutch: ‘koepel cluster Verduurzaming

Productie en Transitie’). The research on which this thesis is based is executed in

the context of the innovation programme TransForum. During its grant period

(from 2004 until 2010), TransForum supported over thirty innovation projects with

the aim to contribute to the sustainable development of agriculture. In innovation

projects pioneering entrepreneurs, researchers and other actors jointly shape new

products, processes and technologies (i.e. novelties) to achieve a more sustainable

chain of food production.

TransForum endorses a system innovation perspective as they state that:

“sustainable development is a dynamic process [which] needs system innovation”

(van Latesteijn and Andeweg, 2010, p. 13-14). The core working strategy of

TransForum is “to let practice lead!” (Veldkamp et al., 2009, p. 89). By initiating

innovation projects they provided: “the necessary trial and error spaces. […] which

enables entrepreneurs to explore yet uncertain opportunities, and learn from

them” (Mommaas and Eweg, p. 47).

An underlying assumption of TransForum's approach is that successful innovation

projects may trigger others to innovative which, in turn, may lead to a cascade of

technical, practical and cultural changes within the sector. Thus, innovation

projects may, in time, result in system innovations that transform the agricultural

sector into a more sustainable sector. This is why I refer to the projects in the

context of TransForum as innovation projects rather than system innovation

projects; system innovations may be the result of a collection of these types of

projects. Others in the field have referred to similar projects as transition

experiments (e.g. Bosch, 2010), system innovative projects (e.g. van Mierlo, 2010),

Introduction

15

pioneer projects (Meijer, 2008), demonstration projects (Schot and Geels, 2008),

niche experiments (Grin, 2008; Kemp and Rotmans, 2004) and innovative practical

projects (van Latesteijn and Andeweg, 2010). This group of projects all aim to

realise actual change that can potentially contribute to system innovation.

Managing innovation projects is an inherently contingent process, that is, there is

no ‘recipe’ or ‘blueprint’ to follow. Moreover, since little prior experience exists on

how to guide system innovations, innovation projects can be regarded as

exploratory spaces in which actors experiment with ‘agricultural system

innovations’. In the next section I elaborate on this system innovation perspective

in order to place the programme and projects studied for this thesis in their

theoretical context.

1.2 System Innovations

System innovations can be defined as “changes in both established patterns of

action and the structures in which they are embedded” (Grin, 2010, p. 224).

Historical examples include the transition from sail to steam ship (Geels, 2002),

from horse to car (Geels, 2005), from coal to gas (Geels, 2005) and from cesspools

to sewer systems (Geels, 2006). System innovation are “long term process that

covers at least one generation (25 years)” (Loorbach 2007, p. 18).

Multi-Level Perspective

Building on work of Rip and Kemp (1996) and Kemp et al. (2001), Geels (2002)

developed the multi-level perspective model to conceptualise the process of

system innovations. The multi-level perspective distinguishes three levels: the

niche (micro-level), the regime (meso-level), and the landscape (macro-level).

Geels (2002, p. 1259) emphasises that: “the different levels are not ontological

descriptions of reality, but analytical and heuristic concepts to understand the

complex dynamics of socio-technical change”.

The regime represents the dominant socio-technical system with shared routines,

which are formalised through institutional rules or embedded as norms. The

resulting patterns prove remarkably resistant to radical change. Or as Geels (2002,

p.1258, referring to Freeman and Perez, 1988) notes: “Radically new technologies

have a hard time to break through, because regulations, infrastructure, user

practices, maintenance networks are aligned to the existing technology. New

Chapter 1

16

technologies often face a mismatch with the established socio-institutional

framework”. Therefore, a crucial role in any system innovation process is played by

so called niches.

Niches are sheltered spaces in which actors can experiment with radical new

products, processes, and technologies that are considered desirable. In the

remainder of this thesis I specify such new products, processes, and technologies

as novelties, to discern them from the general concept of an innovation because

an innovation may refer both to the new products, processes, and technologies

and to the process of change. Niches act as incubators in which actors develop and

experiment with novelties that are considered promising. When relating the multi-

level perspective to innovation projects, it becomes apparent that innovation

projects operate at the niche level (micro-level) as (a) innovation projects are

partly sheltered from regime level dynamics such as market conditions because

usually they are publicly financed and (b) in innovation projects actors aim to

develop, implement, and scale-up specific novelties that could contribute to

fundamentally changing the agricultural sector into a more sustainable sector. A

general notion within system innovation studies is that novelties are

predominantly introduced and developed by a small network of dedicated actors

who are new entrants (newcomers). These newcomers are not embedded within

the dominant socio-technical regime.

The landscape level refers to national or global conditions, such as economic or

environmental circumstances. Current trends within the landscape include global

warming, the international economic crisis, urbanisation and the information (or

digital) revolution. Such landscape developments are often, but not always, long-

term trends that influence (and sometimes exert pressure on) both the regime and

the niche level.

The analytical model is referred to as the ‘multi-level perspective’ to emphasise

that niches (micro-level) are nested in regimes (meso-level), which are in turn

nested in the landscape (macro-level). The arrows in the diagram of the multi-level

perspective (figure 1.1) refer to the process of variation and selection of various

types of novelties.

Introduction

17

Landscape developments put pressure on existing regime, which opens up, creating windows of opportunity for novelties

Socio-technical regime is ‘dynamically stable’.On different dimensions there are ongoing processes

New configuration breaks through, takingadvantage of ‘windows of opportunity’. Adjustments occur in socio-technical regime.

Elements become aligned,and stabilise in a dominant design.Internal momentum increases.

Small networks of actors support novelties on the basis of expectations and visions.Learning processes take place on multiple dimensions (co-construction).Efforts to link different elements in a seamless web.

New regime influences landscape

Niche-innovations

Socio-technical’landscape (exogenouscontext)

Socio-technicalregime

Technology

Markets, user preferences

CulturePolicy

ScienceIndustry

External influences on niches(via expectations and networks)

Increasing structurationof activities in local practices

TimeFigure 1.1: Multi-level perspective on transitions (adapted from Geels, 2002, p. 1263) (Geels

and Schot, 2007, p.401).

In response to critique from, among others, Smith, Striling and Berkhout (2005),

Geels and Schot (2007) refined the multi-level perspective. They propose four

‘archetypes’ of transition pathways. These four types are the result of taking into

account two variables. The first variable is whether the niche and landscape

reinforce or disrupt the regime. The second variable makes a distinction between

the relationship that the regime has with the novelty; it can be considered as

either competitive or symbiotic. Geels and Schot (2007, p. 406) propose that:

“Niche-innovations have a competitive relationship with the existing regime, when

they aim to replace it. Niche-innovations have symbiotic relationships if they can

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111

Chapter 1

18

be adopted as competence-enhancing add-on in the existing regime to solve

problems and improve performance”. Depending on the combination of these two

criteria the following pathways can be distinguished: transformation,

reconfiguration, technological substitution, and de-alignment and re-alignment.

In the transformation pathway, moderate disruptive pressure from the landscape

(macro-level) triggers regime actors to reorient. In response to these outside

pressures, symbiotic relations are formed with add-on novelties, which will

gradually adjust the regime. In this pathway: “Niche actors thus acted as front-

runners, whose routines and practices gradually trickled down and changed regime

rules” (Geels and Schot, 2007, p. 406). In the reconfiguration pathways the regime

adopts ‘beneficial’ novelties that are developed in niches; hence creating a

symbiotic relationship. (I will discuss this pathway in detail in the next paragraph).

Within the de-alignment and re-alignment and technological substitution pathway

the regime has a competitive relationship with the niche. In the de-alignment and

re-alignment pathway strong and sudden disruptive landscape pressures lead to a

collapse of the regime. The broken down regime provides room for the

development of novelties, which are already present in niches. Technological

substitution occurs when developments within niches break through the regime

and replace the existing socio-technical structure. In the conclusion of the paper,

Geels and Schot (2007) note that the pathways are not deterministic and should be

perceived as ideal types.

Reconfiguration Pathways in the Agricultural Sector

Geels early work (2002) focuses on disruptive system innovations in which specific

technologies ‘break through’ the regime and ‘replace’ it. However, it is

questionable if such a revolutionary substitution-perspective is appropriate for

agricultural system change, among others because agriculture is not structured

around a ‘core’ technology. Moreover, the agricultural sector is characterised as a

widely distributed, loosely linked, non hierarchical, international network of

specialised small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), which makes it a

comparatively resilient sector.

Berkers and Geels’ (2011) historical case study on system innovations within the

Dutch greenhouse horticultural (1930-1980) sector illustrates that system

innovations within the agricultural sector entail a long-term step-wise process.

Their study describes that the structure of the greenhouse horticultural sector was

Introduction

19

gradually transformed as growers incorporated diverse add-on novelties within

their business. In line with this research Driessen (2010, in press) observes that:

"farmers often do not change their entire facilities at once as in large-scale

industrial systems, they improve on their farming technologies by piecemeal

engineering, in that way spreading investments". In the Dutch greenhouse

horticulture case (1930-1980), the adoption of, among others, different glass

plates, heating systems, electric lighting and irrigation systems, fundamentally

transformed the greenhouse horticultural sector. In the 1930s, greenhouse

horticulture was comparable with outside arable farming in that it was dependent

on the season and highly influenced by natural factors. In contrast, in the 1980s

greenhouses are high-tech sealed-off biotopes where farming practices are very

different from outside arable farming (Berkers and Geels, 2011).

Following Berkers and Geels' (2011) study, the system change within the

horticultural sector should be typified as a reconfiguration pathway, where

novelties, developed in niches, are generally adopted when found beneficial.

Socio-technical change is triggered when: “regime actors explore new

combinations between old and new elements” (Geels and Schot, 2007 p. 411).

Regime level

Nichelevel

Landscapelevel

Add-on toexistingcomponent

PressurePressure

Componentreplacement

Regime dynamics:growth of elements,weakening of linkages (dotted lines), change inarchitecture; add-on element gains importance

Componentreplacement

Regime adjustmentsin elements and linkages

Figure 1.2: representation of reconfiguration pathway (Geels and Schot, 2007, p. 412).

Figure 1.2 represents the reconfiguration pathway and illustrates that “radical

innovations are initially developed in niches. If they have symbiotic relations with

the regime, they can be easily adopted as add-on or component replacement. (…)

The new regime grows out of the old regime (…) by sequences of multiple

component-innovations” (Geels and Schot, 2007 p. 411). The square, triangle and

Chapter 1

20

pentagon at the niche level symbolise novelties. These novelties gradually replace

specific elements within the existing socio-technical system (displayed as regime

level) to solve a local problem. Over time the integration of diverse novelties may

eventually amount to a fundamental change within the structure of the socio-

technical network (i.e. system innovation).

Assuming that the reconfiguration pathway is applicable to the entire agricultural

sector, the topic of diffusion of novelties is highly relevant, as wide usage of add-

on novelties is needed to achieve a cascade of change throughout the sector.

Diffusion of Novelties

Scholars that study the process of diffusion of innovations argue that the rate of

adoption of novelties by actors follows a standard deviation curve when plotted

over a long period of time (Rogers, 2003). Figure 1.3 represents this standard

deviation and illustrates that adoption of novelties first proceeds slowly. The

actors who first adopt the novelty are refered to as innovators. Innovators

comprise a small group, not more than 2,5% of the total diffusion population.

Next, the rate of diffusion increases: actors who adopt during this period are

named early adopters (around 13,5% of total adopters). The rate of diffusion peaks

when the early majority and late majority (together 68% of total adopters) adopt.

Diffusion rate slows down when the last group, the laggards, adopt (Rogers, 2003).

Figure 1.3: adopter categorisation on the basis of innovativeness (Rogers, 2003, p. 281).

The Study of Niche Development to Aid Practice

The issue of which specific tensions and opportunities key actors experience during

(system) innovation trajectories is marginally discussed by Geels (2002; 2005),

Introduction

21

Geels and Schot (2007) and Rogers (2003) as these studies, like many others, focus

on providing analytical models without paying detailed attention to the practical

processes of developing, implementing and using novelties. Following the work of

Collins (1992), Regeer et al. (2011, p. 52) remarks that: “the more distant one is (in

space, time, and in a social sense) from the locus of a process, the more certain,

linear, deliberate and neat the process will appear”. As a result, the complexity of

the actual development process of an innovation could easily be underestimated.

Several system innovation scholars, however, embarked upon the study of ‘niche

development’ in order to provide further understanding of the practice of system

innovations, thereby offering guidance to policy makers and practitioners. This

resulted in the development of transition management (Loorbach, 2007; van den

Bosch, 2010), reflexive design (Bos and Grin, 2008), and strategic niche

management (Schot and Geels, 2008; van Mierlo, 2002).

Transition Management

Transition management aims to break with linear planning and policy models as

these do not suit the complex, uncertain and long-term nature of system

innovations (Rotmans and Loorbach). Loorbach (2007) argues that long-term,

flexible visions are essential for creating momentum for immediate action. He

proposes four iterative clusters of activities. The first focuses on problem

structuring and the development of guiding visions on the future. The second

entails coalition building and agenda setting. The third concerns establishing and

carrying out transition experiments. The fourth is monitoring, evaluating and

learning lessons from the transition experiments and, based on these, adjust the

vision, agenda and coalitions. Transition Management, however, pays little

attention as to how visions on the future (1st

phase) influence transition

experiments (3rd

phase).

Reflexive Design

Reflexive design is a design methodology that focuses on developing novelties in

which values of diverse actors are inscipted (Bos and Grin, 2008; Grin et al., 2004).

During the construction of reflexive designs, designers interview divergent

stakeholders to gain insights into diverse perspectives, needs and interests. So far,

several reflexive design projects which resulted in numerous innovative designs for

livestock production farms, referred to by playful names like ‘Houden van Hennen’

Chapter 1

22

(Loving and Keeping hens), ‘Kracht van Koeien’ (Cow Power), ‘Varkansen’ (Pig

Opportunities) and ‘Comfort Class’. The idea behind such designs is that if and

when these Reflexive Designs are implemented by farmers it will compel them to

act in a way that is more environmentally, economically and socially beneficial

than the practices within current livestock production farms. Bos (2008), Grin

(2008) and Koerkamp (2008) elaborate on the methodology of reflexive design. In

addition, they reflect on the character and challenges of reflexive design projects.

Although these studies provide better understanding of the reflexive design

processes, they do not elaborate on the role or value of these designs in achieving

actual system change in the agricultural sector.

Strategic Niche Management

Schot and Geels (2008, p. 542) emphasise “the importance of ‘hands-on’, real-life

experiences in demonstration projects” to further system innovations. Researchers

who apply strategic niche management, study socio-technical projects and the

niche level in which these are embedded (van Mierlo, 2002) to investigate

strategies for successful niche development (Schot and Geels, 2008). Strategic

niche management “focuses on understanding the early adoption of new

technologies with high potential to contribute to sustainable development” (Schot

and Geels, 2008, p. 538).

The strategic niche management literature distinguishes three courses of actions

as highly important for the development of a niche, these are: (1) articulating

expectations and visions; (2) building of broad social network; and (3) facilitating

learning (Schot and Geels, 2008 referring to; Elzen, Hoogma, and Schot 1996;

Kemp, Schot, and Hoogma 1998). They specify for the first course of action that

visions should be developed that are broadly shared, concrete, and not too

futuristic. Such visions would contribute to successful niche building and guide

practical projects. For the second course of action it is argued that the social

networks around the novelty should be: (a) broad in terms of multiple kinds of

stakeholders, and (b) deep in terms of commitment. Similar arguments are used

for the third course of action (collaborative learning) as it is advised that (a)

learning should be broad; not only focussed on technical specifications, but also on

market and user preferences, as well as societal and environmental impacts, and

(b) learning should be deep in the sense that it also “contributes to changes in

cognitive frames and assumptions” (Schot and Geels, 2008, p.541).

Introduction

23

Scholars advocating strategic niche management readily recognise the practical

complexity of bringing about a system innovation as they advise “generating more

appreciation and reflexivity about the ongoing dynamics” (Schot and Geels, 2008,

p.548). This can be done by, among other things, “helping policy makers build

competences in recognising and dealing with policy dilemmas”. In addition, Schot

and Geels (2008) note that strategic niche management has been used primarily

for ex-post evaluation of case studies and that it remains questionable to what

extent strategic niche management can be used in a prescriptive way.

Reflecting on System Innovation Studies

I already indicated above that many studies in the field of system innovation

investigate the entire long term system innovation process and therefore overlook

to question which specific tensions and opportunities actors experience within

niches. Studies that do focus on the interactions of actors within niches focus

either on: developing visions of the future (i.e. transition management);

developing new farm designs (i.e. reflexive design), or; developing demonstration

projects (i.e. strategic niche management). As such the issue of what precisely

happens during the phase of developing and implementing a prototype in the

market context and the phase of initial diffusion (implementation of first dozen

novelties after prototype implementation) of novelties is not investigated.

Furthermore, through ex-post evaluation, strategic niche management tries to

provide guidance to actors in niches by primarily pointing out which conditions

favour system innovations. Regeer’s study (2009) elaborates on how actors in

innovation projects perceive such feedback. She states that project coordinators of

innovation projects: “expressed agitation and annoyance with being confronted

repeatedly with the gaps between programme theory and their practice. They

argue they know about the theory but struggle with the implementation” (Regeer,

2009, p.115). Coordinators of innovation projects plead for direct engagement by

scholars and assistance with reflection exercises throughout the innovation

trajectory.

In section 1.3 I will argue that in order to raise our understanding of agricultural

system innovations and to improve our guidance of agricultural innovations

projects, we should look at the interactions between the actors and the novelties

during the phases of developing and implementing a prototype in a market context

and the phase of initial diffusion (implementation of first dozen novelties after

Chapter 1

24

prototype implementation). A research field that has a rich tradition in studying

the interactions between actors and novelties with the aim to gain further

understanding into technology development is the field of technology studies.

Below I first briefly discuss several key concepts within this field of technology

studies before posing the research questions that guided my research.

Clarifying the Concepts of Actants and Inscription

Scholars within the field of sience and technology studies have looked at the

development of artefacts in great detail. Since the prehistoric age, humans have

crafted tools such as stone axes and clothing to solve problems or address needs.

Over time the accumulation of technologies resulted in a society that can be

considered as a socio-technical network (Bijker, Hughes and Pinch, 1987; Bijker

and Law, 1992) in which humans and artefacts continuously interact with each

other to fulfil functions. For example, in the agricultural production network

farmers interact with crops, machines, employees and distributors to produce and

sell food. Hence, science and technology scholars argue that technologies can not

function, and can therefore not be studied, as artefacts in isolation. Latour (1987)

takes this perspective rather far as he argues to discard the distinction between

actors and artefacts and perceive both as actants that interact in a network. I

recognise that actors and artefacts can not be studied in isolation; however, for

analytical reasons I make a distinction between actors and artefacts. Before I

explain how I will use these concepts in my research, I first elaborate on how

technology steers actors and second on how actors steer technology.

First, technology steers our everyday action: cars, roads, bicycles, and public

transport highly influence the route we take to move ourselves from one location

to another. Akrich (1992) argues that: “like a film script, technical objects define a

framework of action together with the actors and the space in which they are

supposed to act“ (Akrich, 1992, p. 208). Inscription is the process in which

designers, engineers, innovators, and manufactures inscribe their desired pattern

of action in the object (Akrich and Latour, 1992). Akrich and Latour (1992) use the

following metaphor to explain inscription: a hotel manager adds a metal weight to

the keys of the hotel rooms to motivate customers to return their key to the desk

(Latour, et al., 1992). Bunders (1994) describes an example of inscription within

the agricultural sector. Researchers at the University of California bred a new

‘hard’ tomato variant which was suitable for machine harvesting. The ‘hard’

tomato was: firm to sustain the force of the machine, detached easily from the

Introduction

25

vine, and all the tomatoes ripened at approximately the same time. The

introduction of the ‘hard’ tomato in California (1962) had wide-ranging effects:

within nine years the number of tomato farms in the region dropped from 4000 to

600. Also 30.000 tomato pickers were replaced by 1.152 harvesting machines.

Alternately, if actors are able to inscribe more broady desired patterns of action in

the novelties and integrate these within the socio-technical network, a more

sustainable sector may be developed.

Second, actors steer technology. Feenberg ‘s (1995) study on the development of

videotex (precursor of the Internet) and Pinch and Bijker’s (1984) case study on the

public introduction of bikes illustrates this. Feenberg describes that the French

government supported the development of videotex (i.e. Teletel) as they expected

it ‘to bring France into the information age’ (Feenberg, 1995, p. 149). However, in

practice users applied and thereby shaped the videotex in unexpected ways, for

example to share sexual fantasies. Pinch and Bijker’s (1984) historical case study

on the introduction of bikes strengthen the notion that users’ preferences shape

technology. Their study shows that different social groups, such as woman cyclists,

sport cyclists, elderly cyclists and tourist cyclists all assigned a different meaning to

the bicycle. Bikes were framed, among others, as sport equipments and transport

tools. The term interpretative flexibility was introduced to refer to the

phenomenon that new technologies are open to more than one interpretation and

that the framing and consequently the shaping of an artefact depends on the eye

and context of the observer. Closure occurs when the artefact reaches its final

form and stabilises (Pinch and Bijker, 1984).

Thus, actors and technology continuously interact and therefore shape each other.

This perspective contrasts with the linear innovation model of basic research -->

applied research --> technological development --> product development -->

production --> usage. Pinch and Bijker (1987) suggest replacing the linear

perspective with a ‘multi-directional’ perspective of technology development that

entails alteration of variation and selection.

Agricultural system innovation takes the multi-directional nature of technology

development into account. It entails replacing existing artefacts within the current

agricultural socio-technical network as well as reconfiguring the network of actors.

Historical examples include the transition from scythe (i.e. reaper) to combine-

harvester and the related changes in work force. To achieve such system

innovations, linkages between actors and artefacts need to be broken down and

Chapter 1

26

new ones need to be assembled. How are such reconfigurations realised in

practice? In the next section I propose to open-up the black box of the

development and implementation of novelties in niches and in market contexts by

exploring the interactions of actants in innovation projects.

1.3 Research Questions

In line with the theoretical perspective sketched above I perceive the agricultural

sector as a socio-technical network. To contribute to the theoretical understanding

of agricultural system innovations and to broaden our understanding of the

guidance of agricultural innovation projects, I explore the actors and artefacts and

their interactions in five innovations projects. By actors I mean the innovation

project participants (e.g. agricultural entrepreneurs, researchers, project

coordinators, civil servants) as well as the stakeholders in the broader network

(e.g. community members, representatives of NGOs, politicians). Specific

configurations of artefacts in my research are what I have called novelties: new

technologies, processes or products that are experimented with in niches. The two

novelties that I have looked at are:

- the Agropark: a network of farms, pigs, mushrooms, industrial plants,

greenhouses, waste streams, bio-energy plants, air filters etc. (see box

1.1, page 36) and;

- the (semi) Closed Greenhouse: a network of glass, heat exchangers, orchids,

aquifers, air ventilation systems, tomatoes, etc. (see box 1.2, page 37).

Next to the dimension of actants (i.e. novelties and actors), my research can be

organised along the chronological dimension of the (system) innovation trajectory,

while recognising that this is not a linear but a multi-directional process. I observed

this trajectory from the development of a prototype of the novelty (e.g. activities

of actors who aim to design an Agropark on one specific site in a market context),

via efforts to implement a prototype of the novelty (e.g. activities of actors who

aim to implement an Agropark on one specific site in a market context) to the

initial diffusion of the novelty (e.g. the first dozen actors who implement and use a

(semi) Closed Greenhouse after the usage of the prototype). The phrase

prototyping is used to refer to the phase in which actors develop and implement

the novelty for the first time in a market context (no prior experience exists). For

clarification, I did not observe the origins or initial development phase of the

novelties in the research context (i.e. the phase in which actors developed a broad

vision of the novelties Agroparks and (semi) Closed Greenhouses, execute not

Introduction

27

locally embedded feasibility studies, test models, or demonstration projects (in

Dutch: ‘proeftuin’). Neither did I observe the early adoption phase or take-off of

diffusion of novelties (by early adopters and early majority implement and use

novelty). Rather, my research focuses on a specific phase of system innovation

processes: from the stage in which novelties are, for the first time, developed and

implemented in a market context to the phase in which the first dozen actors

implement and use the novelty after the prototype (i.e. initial diffusion).

How does the scope of my research relate to Rogers’ (2003) model of diffusion of

innovations? Rogers defines the first group of actors who adopt a novelty as

innovators (see figure 1.3, page 20). Innovators comprise 2,5% of the total

population that eventually implement a novelty. In this study I specify these

innovators as follows:

- Innovators:

- Prototypers: the actors who are the first adopters of a specific novelty (no

prior experience exsists).

- Initial innovators: the actors who are among the first dozen adopters of a

specific novelty after the prototypers (little prior experience exists).

- Follow-up innovators: up to 2,5 % of the total population of adopters.

The group of actors that adopt a novelty after the innovators and comprise 13,5%

of the total population of adopters are refered to as:

- Early adopters

The prototypers and initial innovators are a specific category of agricultural

entrepreneurs. They are pioneers who are intrinsically motivated to shape

novelties further and are in a business context that provides them with the

opportunity to innovate.

Below, I first explain in what way I look at novelties in the phases of developing

and implementing prototypes and initial diffusion. This results in three research

questions. Second, I clarify in what way I will look at actors in the three phases

(again resulting in three corresponding research questions). As argued above, I

expect that looking at innovation projects from these perspectives (novelties and

actors on the one hand, and the three phases of the innovation trajectory on the

other) will increase our understanding and provide theoretical insights in

agricultural system innovations. Next, I will formulate three research questions on

the practical guidance of innovation projects in each of the three phases. The

resulting nine research questions are summarised in Table 1.1 on page 33.

Chapter 1

28

a. Looking at Novelties

With system innovation programmes (and consequently with innovation projects)

the Dutch government aims to support the development of new technologies,

products, and processes (i.e. novelties) that induce more sustainable behaviour of

actors. If actors are able to inscript desired patterns of action in the novelties and

integrate these within the socio-technical network, a more sustainable sector

could conceivably be the result. When examining studies in the field of reflexive

design (i.e. shaping desirable design of novelties by inscripting various values) and

social construction of technology (i.e. users shape technology) the question

emerges to what extent it is possible to steer the development of novelties in a

‘sustainable’ direction. In order to understand the potential impact of a novelty in

the long run, it is highly relevant to gain more insight into the very process of

developing a prototype. Who were involved? How did the involvement of certain

actors affect the shape of the specific prototype? How were certain values

inscripted, and what happened to inscripted values over time in the development

process? This leads me to pose the following question:

Question 1.a:

What do the interactions of actants in innovation projects during the development

of a prototype disclose about the dynamics of shaping novelties?

In the innovation trajectory, after a novelty is framed as a concept of a prototype

(e.g. the design of a local Agropark), it has to be implemented at a specific site, in a

specific context, by local actors. This implies that the sheltered place (the niche) in

which the novelty was developed is opening up. The process will be affected by the

prevailing norms, habits and routines of concerned actors and vice versa. How

exactly the novelty and the regime affect each other in the implementation phase

is as yet underexplored. Is the relationship between novelties and the regime

symbiotic (the novelty fits into the current agricultural domain) or competitive (the

novelty conflicts with the current agricultural domain)? And what does this imply

for the implementation of a prototype of a novelty? This leads to the following

question:

Question 2.a:

What do the interactions between innovation project participants and

stakeholders within the broader network reveal about the relation between

novelties and regimes during the phase of implementing a prototype?

Introduction

29

After the novelty has been developed into a real, functioning, Agropark or (semi)

Closed Greenhouse, it should be implemented more frequently if it is to realise an

actual change in the agricultural sector. As I noted before, the topic of wider

diffusion of novelties is marginally discussed in system innovation studies. In Geels

and Schot’s (2007) system innovation pathways, novelties are depicted as static

objects that do not change over time (see the square, triangle and pentagon

depicted in figure 1.2 on page 19). Also, they refer to novelties as something that is

added-on to the system or that replaces an existing component of the system. Add-

ons and component replacements are then depicted as closed pieces of

equipment. With closed I refer to Pinch and Bijker’s (1984) idea of ‘closure’: the

stage in which the artefact reaches its final form and stabilises. The question arises

if such a representation characterises novelties during the phase in which the

initial innovators implement and use the novelty. This leads to the following

question:

Question 3.a:

What do the interactions of actants in the network of initial innovators that

implement and use a novelty after the realisation of a prototype uncover about

the nature of novelties?

b. Looking at Actors

Elzen et al. (2008) emphasise that within the agricultural sector most novelties are

introduced by pioneering farmers. This observation contrasts with the general

notion within innovation studies that novelties are predominantly introduced by

actors who are new entrants (outsiders). In my study I will take a closer look at

who introduces novelties to shed light on this apparent inconsistency in theory

(see chapter 6). Next to the pioneering farmers, other actors may also play an

important role in the phases of developing and implementing a prototype; e.g.

scientists, intermediairies, government officials, etc. Who are they and what role

do they play? How do their actions affect each other? And how does collaboration

take place? How do they learn? Furthermore, Geels and Schot (2007) distinguish

‘niche actors’ and ‘regime actors’. However, they do not explicitly specify what

precisely is meant with niche- and regime-actor. To gain more insight into the

types and roles of the different actors involved in the development of prototypes

of novelties, I formulate the following question:

Chapter 1

30

Question 1.b:

What do the interactions between innovation project participants reveal about the

role of actors in niches during the phase of developing a prototype?

In the phase of implementing a prototype, the number of involved actors

increases, ranging from the local agricultural entrepreneurs, via neighbours and

local policians to (inter)national interest groups. Strategic niche management

argues that innovation projects should develop a social network of multiple types

of stakeholders who are highly committed (Schot and Geels, 2008). The question is

whether it is realistic and even desirable that all actors who are part of this broad

network of the innovation project are deeply committed. Moreover, Hendriks and

Grin (2007) show that in practice there will sometimes be actors who oppose the

aims of the innovation projects. As the actors within the broader network of

novelties play very different roles, it is useful to make an analytical distinction

between the innovation project participants on the one hand and the stakeholders

within the broader network of the innovation project on the other. When studying

the relationships between these actors during the implementation of a prototype,

the following question emerges:

Question 2.b:

What can be concluded from the interactions between innovation project

participants and stakeholders within the broader network about the role of the

different actors within, and their influence on, the process of implementing a

prototype?

A group that plays a centrale role in the wider diffusion of novelties are the initial

innovators. Initial innovators are needed to further introduce novelties in the

socio-technical network. What do the experiences of initial innovators during the

trajectory from deciding to implement such a novelty until usage reveal about the

process of reconfiguration? And more specificly: what motivates actors to

implement a novelty directly after the implementation of a prototype? And, what

hampering factors do initial innovators encounter? To address this I formulated

the following research question:

Question 3.b:

What do the interactions of actants during the implementation and usage of

novelties reveal about the role of initial innovators during the phase of initial

diffusion of novelties?

Introduction

31

c. Suggestions for Guiding Innovation Trajectories

In addition to contributing to theoretical understanding of agricultural system

innovation, my research aims to provide some indications on how to guide

innovations projects. Facilitating innovation projects is challenging; multiple actors

are involved with diverse views, commitments and ambitions. In addition these

actors are used to express themselves in different jargons and are influenced in a

more or lesser degree by their respective institutional settings. Moreover, the

projects take place in a dynamic context which presents opportunities as well as

obstacles – sometimes foreseen, but more often unexpected. Such a context

makes it challenging to develop and implement prototypes and to implement and

use a novelty in the phase of initial diffusion.

Strategic niche management argues that inter-institutional collaboration and

learning is needed (Schot and Geels, 2008) to further develop novelties after the

inital research and development phase. Regeer (2009) argues that in practice

productive inter-institutional collaboration and learning is not effortlessly

established since traditionally, scientists, entrepreneurs, policymakers, end-users

and other social parties do not interactively co-create novelties. It needs to be

noted that within the Dutch agricultural domain there is a rich tradition in which

researchers and agricultural entrepreneurs cooperate to match knowledge

demand to knowledge supply (Vijverberg, 1997). However, prototyping requires

interactive co-production and co-creation between reseachers and entrepreneurs.

Regeer (2009) concludes that strategies for inter-institutional collaboration that

adequately accommodate the mono-disciplinary background, routines, and

competences of participants need to be developed in action. In this thesis I

compare the actions of three innovation projects regarding inter-institutional

collaboration and learning (specifically science-practice collaboration) to distil

lessons for inter-institutional collaboration and learning leading to the following

question:

Question 1.c:

What do the experiences of the innovation projects tell us about how to facilitate

inter-institutional collaboration and learning?

Attempts to implement a prototype pose special challenges to facilitators of

innovation projects. How can these facilitators acknowledge, and where possible

accommodate, the diverse perspectives and interests of the growing network of

Chapter 1

32

concerned actors? And how can they cope with the problems that arise if novelties

conflict with current legislation? And how to balance between levels of inscripted

ambitions and the commitment of entrepreneurs? These issues lead to the

following research question.

Question 2.c:

What do the experiences of the innovation project tell us about how to facilitate

the process of implementing a prototype of a novelty?

I noted above that numerous actors need to implement novelties to be able to

eventually achieve wider diffusion and thereby a cascade of change throughout

the agricultural sector. However, in practice most agricultural entrepreneurs prefer

to wait with implementation until more experience is obtained, as it is risky to

implement a novelty in the phase directly after prototyping. Initial innovators do

take these risks and their experiences can provide insights in what this groups

needs to support the implementation and usage during the phase of initial

diffusion. My final question aims to disclose these insights in order to provide

suggestions to current innovation policy:

Question 3.c:

What do the experiences of initial innovators tell us about how policy could

stimulate the initial diffusion of novelties?

In chapter 6 I summarise the different suggestions for guiding the development of

a prototype, via the implementation a prototype, to the initial diffusion, that

emerge throughout the chapters of this thesis.

Table 1.1 provides an overview of the research questions combining the two

dimensions of actants with the innovation trajectory. Questions in the light grey

columns relate to the first research objective (improving theoretical

understanding). The questions in the right hand column refer to the second

research objective (improving options for guiding).

Introduction

33

Table 1.1. Overview of research questions.

Dimension

Phase

Novelties Actors Guidance

Developing

a prototype

1.a

What do the

interactions of actants

in innovation projects

during the

development of a

prototype disclose

about the dynamics of

shaping novelties?

1.b

What do the interactions

between innovation

project participants

reveal about the role of

actors in niches during

the phase of developing a

prototype?

1.c

What do the

experiences of the

innovation projects

tell us about how to

facilitate inter-

institutional

collaboration and

learning?

Implemen-

ting a

prototype

2.a

What do the

interactions between

innovation project

participants and

stakeholders within the

broader network reveal

about the relation

between novelties and

regimes during the

phase of implementing

a prototype?

2.b

What can be concluded

from the interactions

between innovation

project participants and

stakeholders within the

broader network about

the role of the different

actors within, and their

influence on, the process

of implementing a

prototype?

2.c

What do the

experiences of the

innovation project

tell us about how to

facilitate the

process of

implementing a

prototype of a

novelty?

Initial

diffusion

3.a

What do the

interactions of actants

in the network of initial

innovators who

implement and use a

novelty after the

realisation of a

prototype uncover

about the nature of

novelties?

3.b

What do the interactions

of actants during the

implementation and

usage of novelties reveal

about the role of initial

innovators during the

phase of initial diffusion

of novelties?

3.c

What do the

experiences of

initial innovators

tell us about how

policy could

stimulate the initial

diffusion of

novelties?

The nine questions introduced in the above table form the overall scope of this

thesis. I will present answers to these questions in chapter 6. These questions are

not posed in this form in chapters 2 to 5; rather, in these chapters more specific

research topics are identified that relate to the broader questions introduced

above. As such, this chapter (chapter 1) can be seen as an overall theoretical frame

that relates the specific studies that are explored in chapter 2 to 5. In chapter 2 to

5 I will clarify each specific focus and relate it to the nine questions that I posed

Chapter 1

34

above. In the conclusion of this thesis (chapter 6) I will further interpret the

findings of chapter 2 to 5 to provide additional understanding into the questions

that I posed in above.

1.4 Methodology

The five innovation projects in which I participated as ‘ILA monitor’ serve as case

studies in the context of this thesis. A case study approach is appropriate for

studying complex socio-technical phenomenon such as agricultural system

innovations, as it takes into account the full spectrum of the phenomenon. Within

the case study approach, researchers provide a deeper understanding of a certain

phenomenon by presenting personal interpretations on a specified case. Below I

firstly present the 5 cases that I studied and position them in the theoretical

context of system innovation. Next, I describe the applied research methodology –

the participatory Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) monitoring approach and

specify the process of data collection and analysis.

Introducing the Five Innovation Projects

Each of the studied innovation projects centres around a specific novelty and

innovation-phase. Flori-log-regie was designing a new logistics model for the

European potted plants sector; C2C Agropark Flevoland was designing an Agropark

in northeast Flevoland; New Mixed Farm and Biopark Terneuzen were designing

and implementing an Agropark in Limburg and Zeeland respectively; Synergy

stimulated the diffusion of a new type of greenhouse: the closed greenhouse.

Boxes 1.1 and 1.2 explain the general concept behind the novelties Agroparks and

Closed Greenhouses.

Biopark Terneuzen

Biopark Terneuzen is situated in the key harbour of the province of Zeeland. In

2006 Zeeland Seaport, Van de Bunt consultants, and TransForum initated Biopark

Terneuzen to explore the idea to couple in and output streams of existing industry

with a new greenhouse complex of 240 ha. Other project participants were the

Municipality of Terneuzen, Province of Zeeland, and the industrial companies of

Yara (a chemical fertiliser plant), Nedalco (a bio-ethanol plant), Heros (a water

purification plant), and Rosendaal Energy (a bio-diesel plant). Knowledge institutes

that executed applied research included the Radboud University, WUR (LEI, A&F,

Introduction

35

PPO), and VU University Amsterdam. More elaborate descriptions of Biopark

Terneuzen are provided in Chapter 2 and 3.

C2C Agrpark Flevoland

Project participants of C2C Agropark Flevoland investigated how input and output

streams of currently operational farms in the Noordoostpolder region could be

interconnected. PPO (WUR) and Origon were the project coordinators.

Furthermore, ten farmers with operated greenhouses, dairy farms, arable farms, a

flower bulb farm and a seed material company joined the project (de Wolf, 2011).

Most energy was directed at trying to develop a business plan in which

entrepreneurs wanted to invest. The project team employed their wide political

and business network within the region to catch the attention of actors within the

policy and finance domain. In Chapter 2 C2C Agropark Flevoland is analysed.

Flori-log-regie

Historically the Dutch auctions and traders have been a hub in the international

logistics of potted plants. In the project Flori-log-regie the management of two

auction houses who during the project merged into FloraHolland, businesses

(Koninklijk Tuinbouwbedrijf Lemkes and HBAG) and representatives of traders

(VGB) and the transport sector collaboratively explored concepts of new logistics

models. An employee of Rijnconsult was the project coordinator. Furthermore

researchers of Wageningen UR (University and the research institutes A&F, LEI)

and Erasmus University participated. Flori-log-regie is presented in Behind the

Scenes 2.

New Mixed Farm

In New Mixed Farm (NMF), several farmers and a director of the processing

company Christiaens Engineering and Development BV aim to cluster a new large-

scale pig farm, a large-scale broiler farm, a slaughterhouse and a bio-energy power

station in a more or less closed system. The intended location of New Mixed Farm

is the municipality of Horst aan de Maas, in the south-east of the Netherlands. The

project coordinators are members of staff of Knowhouse. Other participants

include; researchers of Wageningen UR (A&F, LEI) and TNO, consultants (Arcadis)

and politicians and civil servants from different departments on national, regional

and local level. In Chapter 3 the initial design-phase of New Mixed Farm is

Chapter 1

36

described and in Chapters 2 and 4 the implementation history of New Mixed Farm

(until 2010) is presented in detail.

Synergy

The Synergy project aims to speed-up the diffusion of the closed greenhouse. The

project coordinator is a self-employed consultant. Furthermore researchers of

Wageningen UR (PPO, LEI) participate. The project team broadly communicates

about the closed greenhouse, searches early adaptors and intermediates- and

facilitates collaborations between growers, researchers and civil servants. Another

key activity of Synergy was facilitating 6 weekly platform meetings with growers

that implemented closed greenhouses or that have the intention to implement a

closed greenhouse. These meetings function like a community of practice (Regeer

and Bunders, 2003; Wenger, 1998): growers share experiences and consult each

other with the aim of improving their work. And Synergy is further discussed in

Chapter 3 and 5.

Box 1.1: Agropark

An Agropark is an area where different types of high-tech agricultural and industrial

functions are clustered to create closed energy and nutrient cycles (Engelbart and de Wilt,

1998). The Agropark concept uses the principles of industrial ecology: the notion that we

should transform our production methods in such a way as to optimise production and

minimise waste (Huber, 2000).

The core principle of the Agropark concept is that by incorporating livestock breeding, crop

production, slaughterhouses, and industry such as bio-power plants, diverse nutrient,

waste, and logistic flows can be integrated (de Wilt et al., 2000; Grin and van Staveren,

2007). Agricultural businesses that apply a somehwat ‘industrial’ approach and do not

require extensive areas of land (e.g. not arable farming), such as pig husbandry, poultry, and

greenhouses, are considered well suited for Agroparks (de Wilt and Dobbelaar, 2005).

Agroparks have a comparatively large size to make the required infrastructural investments

that are needed to connect waste flows and the integrated agricultural chain functions

commercially viable. Smeets (2009) describes an Agropark as: ‘a spatial cluster of

agrofunctions and the related economic activities. Agroparks bring together high productive

plant and animal production and processing in industrial mode combined with the input of

high levels of knowledge and technology’ (2009, p.21).

Introduction

37

Box 1.2: Closed Greenhouse

Greenhouses aim to provide a suitable crop climate in all seasons. In winter, natural gas is

used to heat the greenhouse. In summer, the windows of the greenhouse are opened to

loose excess heat.

In 2001, Henk van Oosten and Henk Huizingen (Grin and Staveren, 2007) discuss their idea

to create ‘energy producing greenhouses’ with diverse experts in the field. By using a

different process to warm and cool the greenhouse, heating with natural gas becomes

obsolete. The main parties involved in the development of this pilot greenhouse system

were Innovation Network, Dutch Foundation of Greenhouse Innovation (in Dutch: ‘Stichting

Innovatie Glastuinbouw Nederland’ (SIGN)), Wageningen University and Research Centre

(research institute) and Innogrow (company). This greenhouse uses excess heat in summer

to be used in winter. Heat exchangers harvest excess summer heat by warming cold water

that runs through small tubes. The warmed water is stored underground and used as a

source to heat the greenhouse in the winter. The system includes two underground water

basins (aquifers); one with warm water and one with cold water. This makes it possible to

create a yearly cycle. During summer, cooling happens through ventilating cold air that is

created with the stored cold water. This water subsequently warms. During winter, the

water stream reverses. Now, hot air is produced and ventilated. Subsequently, cold water is

created, which is used for the upcoming summer. Because this novel heating and cooling

system makes opening the windows of the greenhouse obsolete, the novel greenhouse is

referred to as the closed greenhouse. In addition to declining natural gas use, the closed

system creates the possibility to keep carbon dioxide and humidity levels high. In open

greenhouses, CO2 and H2O evaporate through the open windows.

The Case Studies in Theoretical Perspective

When trying to position the innovation projects of TransForum within the

theoretical context of the multi-level perspective model (p, X), it becomes

apparent that innovation projects are embedded within niches (micro-level).

Innovation projects can be regarded as a specific type of ‘demonstration projects’,

a term used in strategic niche management (see page 22) or as a ‘transition

experiment’, a term used in transition management (see page 21). Innovation

projects aim to develop, implement, and scale-up specific novelties (i.e new

products, processes, and technologies) that could contribute to fundamental

changes toward a more sustainable agricultural sector. Moreover, innovation

projects incorporate principles of transition management and strategic niche

Chapter 1

38

management as actors from multiple domains participate and a ‘learning by doing’

approach is applied. A difference between the innovation projects that I studied

and ‘demonstration projects’ as described by strategic niche management is that

all five innovation projects took place in a market context while demonstration

projects can also occur in public contexts (e.g. a university setting).

Another facet of the selected cases is the specific novelties that the innovation

projects worked on: Agroparks and (semi) Closed Greenhouses. How do these

novelties relate to system innovation theory? And how do Agroparks and (semi)

Closed Greenhouses relate to each other? Some scholars of system innovation

argue that Agroparks and (semi) Closed Greenhouses have the potential to trigger

an agricultural system innovation (Elzen, Leeuwis and van Mierlo, 2008; Grin, van

Staveren 2007; Smeets, 2009; Termeer and Dewulf, 2009). For instance, it is

anticipated that implementation of these novelties will have a large impact on the

configuration of the socio-technical network. Moreover, it is expected that

adoption of these novelties will result in an agricultural production system that

functions with less pollution than the established agricultural production system.

So, to what extent do Agropark and (semi) Closed Greenhouse relate to each

other? First, both novelties involve high-tech constructions. Second, they were

initially developed by researchers. Third, they can be perceived as being aligned to

the design principles of industrial ecology: the notion that we should transform our

production methods in such a way that production is optimised and waste flows

are minimised (Huber, 2000). Fourth, the users of both novelties are primarily

farmers.

The key differences between the novelties is that (semi) Closed Greenhouses can

trigger system innovations within the horticulture sector. By contrast, Agroparks

transcend the boundaries of the agricultural and industrial sectors and thereby can

potentially induce system innovations throughout these sectors. In addition, the

(semi) Closed Greenhouse is a more narrowly defined novelty with specific

technological features whereas the Agropark is a broadly defined concept.

Furthermore, during the execution of this research, Agroparks and (semi) Closed

Greenhouses were at different phases in the system innovation process. Whereas

several (semi) Closed Greenhouses were already operational, only one Agropark

had been partly established. As a result, I investigated the novelty Agropark during

the phase of developing and implementing a prototype, and I studied the novelty

Introduction

39

(semi) Closed Greenhouse during the initial diffusion phase (i.e. when the initial

innovators adopt the novelty). As a consequence I explored experiences of the

Agropark innovation projects to address questions 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 2.a, 2.b and 2.c.;

and I investigated the experiences of the initial innovators of the (semi) Closed

Greenhouse, who participated in the innovation project Synergy, to address

questions 3.a, 3.b and 3.c. For clarification, the experiences of inter-institutional

collaboration and learning between researchers and entrepreneurs within the

context of the Synergy innovation project were also taken into account to answer

questions 1.b and 1.c, so that more experiences of innovation projects can be

compared.

Another question that emerges is: why were these five innovation projects chosen

as cases for study? During my research I applied a specific interactive learning and

action (ILA) research approach. ILA builds on transdisciplinary (Caron-Flinterman,

2005; Klein, 2001) and (participatory) action research (Lewin, 1946) as it values the

knowledge of non-researchers, such as farmers and patients, and aims to

contribute to solving complex societal issues. As this kind of research is integrated

in a social context that is inherently uncertain, ILA researchers apply an adaptive

en route research approach. This implies that cases are not only selected on the

basis of their appropriateness for generating knowledge in a specific field, but also

on the basis of the needs of actors who work on complex societal issues. In my

study I interacted within and studied five innovation projects that fitted my

research objectives and welcomed my participation.

So, how was I introduced to participants of the innovation projects studied? The

Athena Institute was given the opportunity by the innovation programme

TransForum to study innovation projects with the aim to understand the

interaction within innovation projects and to support the participants. As such a

research team of the Athena Institute, in which I participated, further developed

and experimented with the Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) monitoring

approach, which Regeer (2003; 2009) started to explore in 2003. Below I explain

the principles behind the Interactive Learning and Action monitoring approach and

discuss how I applied this in five innovation projects.

Interactive Learning and Action Monitoring Approach

Interactive Learning and Action monitoring approach is based on the Interactive

Learning and Action (ILA) approach (see box 1.3 for a brief description of the ILA

Chapter 1

40

approach). ILA monitoring is a type of evaluation approach that differs from other

evaluation approaches such as goal-oriented programme evaluation and

programme theory evaluation (Regeer et al, 2009). The underlying assumption of

goal-oriented programme evaluations is that there is a firm casual (linear) relation

between interventions and performance, and that these results can be measured.

Such a perspective mis-matches with the system innovation perspective which

emphasises that system innovations entail long-term, dynamic, and thus

unpredictable processes. In addition, the goal-oriented evaluation approach is

applied at the end of an intervention to assess its impact; thereby not providing

feedback for improvement of performance.

Programme theory evaluation, on the other hand, investigates why certain

interventions are set-up. It investigates the rationale behind the project’s

perceived problems, its intended interventions and expected results. A point of

critique to programme theory evaluation is that the approach insufficiently takes

into account the wide variation in perspectives and the adaptive nature of

programmes. Furthermore, the consistancy between the project’s aspirations and

the actions undertaken by participants, can be lacking. For example, ‘demand-

driven research’ may be an explicit aspiration of the project, but in practice some

project participants may act contrary to these intentions (e.g. executing basic and

science-driven research). This phenomenon has been described as a discrepancy

between the ‘espoused theory’ (intention) and ‘theory-in-use’ (practice) (Argyris

and Schon, 1974). The discussion of Regeer et al. (2009) of the predominantly

applied goal-oriented evaluation and programme theory evaluation approaches

clearly demonstrate the need for a new evaluation approach, which focuses on the

theory and actions of the inner-project “with the purpose of assisting in making

timely adjustments” (Regeer et al., 2009, p. 521).

ILA monitoring addresses the need to interconnect evaluation and assistance. ILA

monitoring focuses on the inner workings of the evaluated projects. Researchers

that apply ILA monitoring are referred to as ‘monitors’. ILA monitors investigate

the inside of projects, rather than measuring the ‘outside’ impacts. This focus is

chosen because performance measurement of project outcomes is incompatible

with the context of agricultural system innovations, which are long-term processes

in which many actors and institutions play a role and that go well beyond the

scope of the evaluated project. The ‘inside’ perspective of ILA monitoring aligns

with programme theory evaluation. An important difference between ILA

monitoring and programme evaluation is that ILA monitoring not only assesses the

Introduction

41

underlying assumptions of project participants but also observes and questions the

practice (i.e. inside working) of the evaluated project.

An ILA monitor aims to assist the innovation project by stimulating reflection of

project participants upon their actions and intervention strategies. Furthermore,

the monitor aims to increase the relation between intervention strategy and

practice by making explicit and questioning inconsistencies in an appreciative way

(i.e. appreciative enquiry). Appreciative enquiry implies a constructive and

exploratory approach and assists in creating a safe environment for project

participants. This safe environment is essential for the articulation of and

reflection on tough issues, such as difficulties, annoyances, conflicts and other

struggles. As continually and bluntly confronting project participants with

inconsistencies and problematic issues will most likely ‘overshoot the mark’ of

assisting the project as the participants will get frustrated and discouraged.

For an ILA monitor, appreciative enquiry goes hand in hand with addressing tough

issues that project participants tend to ‘sweep under the rug’. The ILA monitor

specially attends to putting tough issues, such as activities that didn’t go so well,

on the agenda. However some tough issues require more attention then reflection

alone. The ILA monitor deals with these types of issues by organizing and executing

an intervention. For example by facilitating work sessions in which project

participants experience a new working approach. (An example of a work session is

provided in Behind the Scenes (pages 75-100).

The focus on the ‘inside working’ does not mean that ILA monitors turn a blind eye

to the project’s context (i.e. regime). As stated above (see also box 1.3), ILA

especially attends to the surrounding context in which the project is embedded. An

ILA-monitor addresses issues that go beyond the scope of the project such as (lack

of) support of the home organisations of project participants (Regeer and Bunders,

2007).

Last, ILA monitoring is not a ‘method’ in the sense that it provides a blueprint to be

used in any context. Instead, it is an Adaptive Evaluation approach, whereby

monitoring activities are continually tailored and brought into alignment with the

specific learning needs, competences, contexts, aims and phases of the

investigated projects. Thus, ILA monitoring ensures a strong link between the

monitoring activities and the intervention strategy of the evaluated project.

Further theoretical grounding of the ILA monitoring is discussed in Regeer et al.

Chapter 1

42

(2009). For an elaborate guide on ILA monitoring I refer to Regeer, et al. (2011) and

van Mierlo, et. al. (2010).

Box 1.3: Interactive Learning and Action (ILA)

The Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) methodology combines qualitative and

quantitative social research and participation, coaching and training. ILA focuses on the

relation between science, technology, innovations and society.

Over the past twenty-five years, the Athena Institute (VU University Amsterdam) developed

and experimented with the ILA approach to gain further understanding of the relationship

between science, technology and society and at the same time to improve alignment

between science and technology development and societal needs (Broerse, 1998; Bunders

et al., 2010; Caron-Flinterman, 2005; Regeer, 2009; Regeer and Bunders, 2007; Roelofsen,

2011; Zweekhorst, 2004). The ILA approach was first introduced in developing countries in

the 1980s and 1990s with the aim to adapt agricultural innovation to the needs and desires

of small-scale farmers (Bunders and Broerse, 1991).

An important difference between the ILA approach and other participatory,

transdisciplinary, and action oriented research approaches is that attention is given not only

to the project and the competences of project participants, but also to the surrounding

context (regime) in which the project is embedded (Broerse, 2001; Regeer, 2009;

Zweekhorst, 2004). Since ILA includes the regime within the unit of analysis and is applied in

transdisciplinary settings, it is an appropriate methodology for studying and assisting

innovation projects that work on system innovations.

Applying ILA Monitoring to the Innovation Programme TransForum

TransForum formulated a ‘set of motivating assumptions' to which participating

actors within innovation projects had to comply in order to be granted financial

support. These principles are: ”system innovation is a non-linear learning process

[..and..] requires a multi-stakeholder approach [..which..] implies trans-disciplinary

knowledge creation” (Latesteijn and Andeweg, 2011a, p. 13-14). In the resulting

innovations projects, farmers, researchers, civil servants and public actors jointly

pioneered to achieve new agricultural businesses with “better 3P performance”

(Latesteijn and Andeweg, 2011b, p. 136).

In the summer of 2005, members of staff of TransForum discussed with the Athena

Institute the issues that they struggled with: how to capture the learning

Introduction

43

experiences of the innovation projects and how to embed the lessons learned

within the projects. This was an important issue for the TransForum bureau

because no blueprint exists for their task; in fact little prior experience exists with

inter-institutional collaborations and learning which ultimately aim for sector-wide

change. As such, the innovation projects can be considered as experimental spaces

in which different strategies and approaches are developed. TransForum needed a

methodology to evaluate their projects and make any lessons that could be drawn

from them explicit. They found, however, that most of the currently applied

methods were not well suited to their specific needs as they are based on a

paradigm which includes (a) clear-cut, certain and shared objectives and (b) a

strong causal relation between interventions and outcomes.

The Athena Institute took on the task to develop and apply an evaluation method

that would better suit TransForum’s motivating assumptions and the context of

the innovation projects. This resulted in the further refinement of the ILA

monitoring approach, to stimulate the learning of project participants with the aim

to improve the effectiveness of their interventions and to seize the insights

obtained through the experiences of the innovation projects (Regeer, 2009). I was

the monitor for the innovation projects Biopark Terneuzen, C2C Agropark

Flevoland, Flori-log-regie, New Mixed Farm, and Synergy1.

My Role as Monitor in Five Innovation Projects

In March 2006 I began my research as I started to explore monitoring activities in

the innovation projects Biopark Terneuzen, New Mixed Farm and Synergy and,

some time later, in Flori-log-regie and C2C Agropark Flevoland. Initally I applied the

Learning History approach (Kleiner and Roth, 1996) to capture the learning

experiences of the innovation projects. Numerous interviews were conducted,

transcribed and labelled to create narratives in which the critical episodes during

the process of the projects were documented. These narratives were analysed by

1 Throughout the five years of the collaboration with TransForum, the ILA monitor research team

applied ILA monitoring within thirteen agricultural innovation projects (within and outside of the

context of TransForum). I monitored five innovation projects and Dr. Barbara Regeer was, besides

overall coordinator, the primary monitor for three innovation projects (Streamlining Greenport Venlo,

Green Care Amsterdam and Biopark Terneuzen). In 2007 the monitoring team was extended with

senior researcher Prof. Dr. Tjard De Cock Buning (LandMarkt, Green Education), post docs Dr. Volkert

Beekman (Northern Frisian Woods, Agromere, Echt Overijsel) and Dr. Mariette van Amstel (Regional

Food Chains), and junior researcher Renee Liesveld M.Sc. (Regional Food Chains).

Chapter 1

44

myself and the project participants, providing the opportunity to collectively

reflect on the experiences.

During the first few months of monitoring, I primarily observed project activities,

questioned perspectives of project participants and analysed these ethnographic

data together with project participants. In a later stage, as it became clear that

addressing tough issues and reflection were not always enough to establish change

of action, providing advice and organising work-sessions were added to the

monitor’s interventions.

Building on this preliminary ILA monitoring research, I advanced reflection upon

the ILA-monitoring methodology and extended my monitoring activities. Reflection

was strengthened by participating within several ‘monitoring’ networks. From

2006 onwards I joined: the CCT (Competition Centre Transition) Transition-

Monitoring Network and participated in six meetings; the TransForum Monitorings

Community of Practice and participated in seven meetings; the CCT platform

Learning in Transitions and participated in over five meetings. Furthermore, in

2008 I was provided the opportunity to take part in a collaboration with the

Communication and innovation Studies group at the Wageningen University to

develop a guide for monitors. I assisted in the interviewing of four monitors and

four project coordinators and co-authored the book (van Mierlo et al., 2010).

As ILA-monitor I enhanced my monitoring activities by, among others, providing

quicker feedback to innovation project participants. In addition, I experimented

with letting the project participants experience a new working approach by

initiating and facilitating tailored work-sessions. An account of work-sessions that

were executed within the projects Flori-log-regie is provided in the intermezzo

Behind the Scenes.

The ‘empirical core’ of this thesis was built during my monitoring activities. Since

our ILA monitoring approach (Regeer et al., 2009) is in line with ethnographic

(Gellner and Hirsch, 2001) and Grounded Theory principles (Strauss and Corbin,

1990) much effort was invested in collecting a rich and accurate body of empirical

data. For each of the five projects; key informant relationships were built:

interviews with project participants and key stakeholders were conducted, project

meetings and seminars were attended and workshops were developed and

facilitated. Table 1.2 provides an overview of my involvement within the

innovation projects. These data provide the basis for this study on Agricultural

Introduction

45

system innovation. Next to this main focus, the intermezzo provides additional

insight in the practice of ILA monitoring. Here I provide a peek into the work of a

monitor. I entitled this section ‘behind the scenes’ (pages 95-100).

Table 1.2: specification of monitor involvement within five innovation projects.

Project Involvement Documentation

Biopark

Terneu-

zen

Conducted:

- 15 interviews

with project

coordinators,

participating

researchers and

practitioners.

-1 presentation

for core project

team.

Participated in:

-2 seminars for

broad network

of project.

Hoes, A.C, B.J. Regeer, and J.F.G. Bunders. 2008. Transformers

in knowledge production: building science-practice

collaborations. Action Learning: Research & Practice 5 (3):207-

220. (Chapter 3 this thesis)

Hoes (2008) van Onderzoek naar Innovatie? ervaringen met

transdisciplinair onderzoek in Biopark Terneuzen. Internal

report.

Hoes (2006) Monitoringsverslag van Agribusiness Cluster Gent

Terneuzen. Internal report.

Hoes (2006) Monitoring van Agribusiness Cluster Gent

Terneuzen. Presentation at Van der Bunt, Amsterdam (21

november 2006).

Hoes (2008) TransFormers in Knowledge Production: Building

science-practice collaborations. Henley-on-Thames, Groot-

Brittannië: International Action-Learning Conference (18

March 2008).

C2C

Agro-

park

Flevo-

land

Conducted

-10 interviews

with project

coordinators

and

participating

farmers.

Participated in:

2 meetings of

project team.

1 visioning

workshop for

Hoes, A.C, B.J. Regeer, and J.F.G. Bunders. In review.

Sustainable Development of Agriculture: Exploring the relation

between future visions and bottom-up entrepreneurship in

the Agropark case. Special issue of the Journal of Chain and

Network Science. (Chapter 2 this thesis)

Hoes and Liu (2010) C2C Agropark in de Noordoostpolder.

Movie. Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

Alimahomed, R., van Benthem, J., Huizenga, H., Klinkenberg,

M., van Scheepstal, I., Shatanawi, S., van der Spoel, I., Yntema,

F., Zijl, L. (2009) C2C Agropark in de Noordoostpolder.

Supervised by Anne-Charlotte Hoes. Internal document.

Chapter 1

46

participating

farmers.

1 seminar for

broad network

of project.

Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

Liu, Y (2010) Een workshop aanpak om samenwerkings-

problemen in een beginnend project aan te pakken. Internship

report supervised by A.C. Hoes.

Flori-

log-

regie

Conducted:

-12 interviews

with project

coordinator,

participating

professionals

and

researchers.

-2 workshops.

1 to assists

science-practice

collaboration at

project level.

1 to embed

lessons learned

on programme

(TransForum)

level.

-3 presentations

for core project

team,

TransForum

bureau, and at

project seminar.

Participated in:

-6 meetings of

project’s

steering

committee

-2 seminars; for

wide network of

project.

Hoes, A.C, Regeer, B.J., Bunders, J.F.G. (2010) Facilitating

Learning in Innovative Projects: Reflections on our experiences

with ILA-monitoring. Conference Paper for International

Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and

Capabilities (OLKC). June 3-6, 2010. Boston, Massachusetts.

(Behind the Scences this thesis)

Hoes (2009) Experiment voor kennis co-creatie,

hoe wetenschap en praktijk samenkomen in Florilog-regie.

Hoes, A.C., Scheer, F.A. & Vollebregt, H. (2008). Flor-i-log

regie, Werkpakket 3 Netwerkorganisatie. Athena.

Hoes (2010) Facilitating Learning in Innovative Projects:

Reflections on our experiences with ILA-monitoring

Presentation at Organizational Learning, Knowledge and

Capabilities (OLKC) Conference: Learning to Innovate,

Innovating to Learn (5 June 2010). Boston: Massachusetts,

USA.

Hoes (2008) Lessen uit Florilog regie voor Shared Value

Development . Zoetermeer: werksessie TransForum. (17

December 2008)

Hoes (2008) De geschiedenis van FloriLog-regie…

…en een blik vooruit! Presentation at FloraHolland, 23 June

2008, Aalsmeer.

Hoes (2008) Science-business collaborations in FloriLog

Orchestration. Presentation at International conference on

Management in Agrifood Chains and Networks (29 May 2008),

Ede.

New

Mixed

Conducted:

-31 interviews,

Hoes, A.C. and B.J. Regeer. In review. Adoption of New Land

Use Facilities in a Normative Diverse Society: exploring the

Introduction

47

Farm with innovation

project

participants,

and stake-

holders who did

not participate

in the project.

-2 workshops at

project level to

reflecting on

issues of public

resistance.

-5 presenta-

tions, for core

project team,

steering

committee,

TransForum

bureau and

scientific

conference.

Participated in:

-20 meetings of

steering

committee,

project team,

and task force.

-3 public

events; a public

informa-tion

meeting, a

public debate

and public city

counsel debate.

-1 seminar for

project

participants

New Mixed Farm case. Journal of Environmental Policy &

Planning. (Chapter 4 this thesis)

Hoes, A-C, Regeer, B.J., Bunders, J.F.G. 2009. Anticipating

public protest in niche experiments. Conference paper. KSI

Conference: Dynamics & Governance of Transitions to

Sustainability.

Hoes (2009) Dynamische leeragenda Nieuw Gemengd Bedrijf.

Internal project document.

Hoes (2007) Notitie over de informatiebijeenkomst in

Grubbenvorst en een analyse van de tegenargumenten van

buurtbewoners. Internal project document.

Hoes (2006) Monitoringsverslag van Nieuw Gemengd Bedrijf.

Internal project document.

Hoes (2010) Een reflectie op de gebeurtenissen van Nieuw

Gemengd Bedrijf. Horst, Nederland (25 March 2010).

Hoes (2009) Lessen uit Nieuw Gemengd Bedrijf voor Shared

Value Development . Zoetermeer: werksessie TransForum. (6

July 2009)

Hoes (2009) Anticipating public protest in niche experiments.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands. KSI Conference: Dynamics &

Governance of Transitions to Sustainability (4 June 2009).

Hoes (2007) Monitoring Nieuw Gemengd Bedrijf. Presentation

during Steering committee of New Mixed Farm, 15 Januari

2007, city hall Horst aan de Maas, Horst.

Hoes (2006), Een Leergeschiedenis van Nieuw Gemengd

Bedrijf. Presentation for core project participants at

KnowHouse, Horst (30 June, 2006).

Synergy Conducted:

-24 interviews,

with project

Hoes, A.C, V. Beekman, B. Regeer, and J.F.G. Bunders. In-press.

Unravelling the dynamics of adopting novel technologies: An

account of how the closed greenhouse opened-up.

Chapter 1

48

coordinators

(key infor-

mants), with

participating

growers,

representatives

of horticulture

and civil

servants.

-1 workshop to

assist project

team with

transdisciplinary

communication.

-7 presentations

for core project

team, steering

committee,

growers CoP,

TransForum

IAB, Graduate

School and

scientific

conference.

Participated in:

-18 meetings

CoP meetings of

Growers,

project

meetings and

steering

committee

meetings.

-2 seminars for

early adopters.

International Journal of Foresight and innovation Policy.

(Chapter 5 this thesis)

Bakker, J.C., Maters, H.J., Kipp, J.A., Gieling, T.H., Hoes, A-C.,

(2009) SynErgie, Eindrapportage Fase I en II, Wageningen UR

Glastuinbouw, Wageningen

Hoes (2008) Een evaluatie van het tuindersplatform. Internal

project document.

Hoes (2007) Dynamische kennisagenda van Synergie. Internal

project document.

Hoes (2007) Notitie over de rol van de projectgroep Synergie.

Internal project document.

Hoes (2006) Monitoringsverslag van Synergy. Internal project

document.

Hoes (2008) Following system innovation projects. Ravenstein:

The Netherlands Graduate School of Science, Technology and

Modern Culture (WTMC) zomerschool. (26 August 2008)

Hoes (2008) Learning in a Niche: A narrative of how the closed

greenhouse opened-up. Wageningen: Conference Transitions

Towards Sustainable Agriculture (27 October 2008).

Hoes (2008) Learning for system innovations: A narrative of

how the closed greenhouse opened-up. Amsterdam:

International Advisory Board of TransForum. (25 November

2008)

Hoes (2008) Leren van de tuinders verhalen over transities.

Ter Aar: tuindersplatform van Synergie. (10 November 2008)

Hoes (2007) Reflectie Projectgroep. Presentation and working

session for project participants Synergy at, Zoetermeer. 21 juni

2007.

Hoes (2006) Monitoring & Synergie. Presentation for core

project participants at Productschap Tuinbouw, Zoetermeer

(21 June, 2006).

Introduction

49

Approaches for Securing Quality

I applied several strategies to assure the quality regarding my interpretations and

conclusions. These are: (a) being precise and extensive in the collection of relevant

empirical data by reordering and transcribing all interviews and work sessions. (b)

Inquiring and analysing these empirical data by extensively and intensively moving

back and forth between empirical data, theory, and own reflections. I used the

qualitative coding system software ATLAS-Ti to assist the coding of the empirical

data. (c) Improving initial interpretation through organising dialogue with

colleagues, innovation project participants, peers, and practitioners, and (d)

confirming accuracy of the presented data by asking coordinators of innovation

projects to check manuscripts and (e) organising quality control on the consistency

and strength of argumentations that are presented in the manuscript through

scientific peer review feedback, as chapters 3 and 5 have already been published in

peer reviewed journals.

Case studies are necessarily limited in terms of time-span, geography, and other

factors. In each chapter I will be elaborate on a) the scope of the selected case, b)

why the case was relevant for answering the main research question, and c) which

questions steered the data analysis. Additionally, in each chapter I will make an

explicit distinction between theory, data and my own interpretation in the

presentation of the findings.

1.5 Outline of the Thesis

In this introduction I discussed the theoretical and practical context of this thesis

and clarified my research approach. As indicated above, this chapter relates the

specific studies that are explored in chapter 2 to 5. In this section I briefly

introduce the scope of these specific studies.

In chapter 2 I will indicate that system innovation theory argues that there is a

relation between a top-down vision on the future and innovation projects.

However, the issue of how such visions influence innovation projects is not yet well

studied. In chapter 2 the relationship between visions on the future and bottom-

up entrepreneurship is explored by studying the interaction of actors in an

Agropark visioning initiative and in four Agropark innovation projects.

Chapter 1

50

As indicated above, strategic Niche Management stresses that inter-institutional

collaboration and learning is highly important for innovation projects. However,

Regeer (2009) notes that such collaboration is not easily established in practice. In

Chapter 3 I will compare the strategies that were applied in three innovation

projects to shape science-practice collaboration and learning. This chapter

provides guiding principles for shaping collaboration and shared learning in

heterogeneous groups, like the stakeholder groups undertaking an innovation

project. These guiding principles were fed back into a different innovation project

(i.e. Flori-log-regie) by developing and organising a tailored workshop to improve

the collaboration between practitioners and scientists. A detailed description of

this workshop is provided in the intermezzo Behind the Scenes.

Chapter 4 addresses the topic of dynamics of social acceptance during the

implementation of a prototype. Studies in the field of spatial planning (Schively,

2007) indicate that since the 1980s innovators are increasingly confronted with

dilemmas of public resistance when aspiring to implement a new facility, such as a

farm, even when the facility results in a more sustainable practice. This

phenomenon also occurred in one of the studied innovation projects, where

implementation efforts were hampered due to public protest. To gain further

understanding of the dynamic and struggles that emerge during the

implementation of novelties, in this chapter I explore the interaction between

innovation project participants and actors within the broader network during the

implementation of the proposed Argopark New Mixed Farm.

The phase of initial diffusion of novelties in agricultural system innovation context

is examined in chapter 5, where the interactions of initial innovators, who

implemented the novelty (semi) Closed Greenhouse directly after the prototyping

phase, are studied.

In chapter 6 I investigate what general insights the specific studies of this thesis

(chapters 2 to 5) provide on the theory and practice of agricultural system

innovation. Findings regarding the interactions between actors and novelties

within the network of innovation projects are related to the nine questions that I

posed in table 1.1 (page 33). In the concluding remarks some suggestions for

further research are provided.